FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Parry writes, "Barack Obama has failed to take full control over his foreign policy, allowing a bureaucracy shaped by long years of Republican control and spurred on by a neocon-dominated U.S. news media to frustrate many of his efforts to redirect America’s approach to the world in a more peaceful direction."

Protesters use tear gas and throw stones during clashes with riot police in front of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine during a rally in Kiev on November 24, 2013. (photo: Genya Savilov/AFP)
Protesters use tear gas and throw stones during clashes with riot police in front of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine during a rally in Kiev on November 24, 2013. (photo: Genya Savilov/AFP)


Neocons and the Ukraine Coup

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

24 February 14

 

American neocons helped destabilize Ukraine and engineer the overthrow of its elected government, a “regime change” on Russia’s western border. But the coup – and the neo-Nazi militias at the forefront – also reveal divisions within the Obama administration, reports Robert Parry.

ore than five years into his presidency, Barack Obama has failed to take full control over his foreign policy, allowing a bureaucracy shaped by long years of Republican control and spurred on by a neocon-dominated U.S. news media to frustrate many of his efforts to redirect America’s approach to the world in a more peaceful direction.

But Obama deserves a big dose of the blame for this predicament because he did little to neutralize the government holdovers and indeed played into their hands with his initial appointments to head the State and Defense departments, Hillary Clinton, a neocon-leaning Democrat, and Robert Gates, a Republican cold warrior, respectively.

Even now, key U.S. diplomats are more attuned to hard-line positions than to promoting peace. The latest example is Ukraine where U.S. diplomats, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, are celebrating the overthrow of an elected pro-Russian government.

Occurring during the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, the coup in Ukraine dealt an embarrassing black eye to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had offended neocon sensibilities by quietly cooperating with Obama to reduce tensions over Iran and Syria, where the neocons favored military options.

Over the past several weeks, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was undercut by a destabilization campaign encouraged by Nuland and Pyatt and then deposed in a coup spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias. Even after Yanukovych and the political opposition agreed to an orderly transition toward early elections, right-wing armed patrols shattered the agreement and took strategic positions around Kiev.

Despite these ominous signs, Ambassador Pyatt hailed the coup as “a day for the history books.” Most of the mainstream U.S. news media also sided with the coup, with commentators praising the overthrow of an elected government as “reform.” But a few dissonant reports have pierced the happy talk by noting that the armed militias are part of the Pravy Sektor, a right-wing nationalist group which is often compared to the Nazis.

Thus, the Ukrainian coup could become the latest neocon-initiated “regime change” that ousted a target government but failed to take into account who would fill the void.

Some of these same American neocons pushed for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, not realizing that removing Saddam Hussein would touch off a sectarian conflict and lead to a pro-Iranian Shiite regime. Similarly, U.S. military intervention in Libya in 2011 eliminated Muammar Gaddafi but also empowered Islamic extremists who later murdered the U.S. ambassador and spread unrest beyond Libya’s borders to nearby Mali.

One might trace this neocons’ blindness to consequences back to Afghanistan in the 1980s when the Reagan administration supported Islamic militants, including Osama bin Laden, in a war against Soviet troops, only to have Muslim extremists take control of Afghanistan and provide a base for al-Qaeda to plot the 9/11 attacks against the United States.

Regarding Ukraine, today’s State Department bureaucracy seems to be continuing the same anti-Moscow geopolitical strategy set during those Reagan-Bush years.

Robert Gates described the approach in his new memoir, Duty, explaining the view of President George H.W. Bush’s Defense Secretary Dick Cheney: “When the Soviet Union was collapsing in late 1991, Dick wanted to see the dismantlement not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never again be a threat to the rest of the world.”

Vice President Cheney and the neocons pursued a similar strategy during George W. Bush’s presidency, expanding NATO aggressively to the east and backing anti-Russian regimes in the region including the hard-line Georgian government, which provoked a military confrontation with Moscow in 2008, ironically, during the Summer Olympics in China.

Obama’s Strategy

As President, Obama has sought a more cooperative relationship with Russia’s Putin and, generally, a less belligerent approach toward adversarial countries. Obama has been supported by an inner circle at the White House with analytical assistance from some elements of the U.S. intelligence community.

But the neocon momentum at the State Department and from other parts of the U.S. government has continued in the direction set by George W. Bush’s neocon administration and by neocon-lite Democrats who surrounded Secretary of State Clinton during Obama’s first term.

The two competing currents of geopolitical thinking – a less combative one from the White House and a more aggressive one from the foreign policy bureaucracy – have often worked at cross-purposes. But Obama, with only a few exceptions, has been unwilling to confront the hardliners or even fully articulate his foreign policy vision publicly.

For instance, Obama succumbed to the insistence of Gates, Clinton and Gen. David Petraeus to escalate the war in Afghanistan in 2009, though the President reportedly felt trapped into the decision which he soon regretted. In 2010, Obama backed away from a Brazilian-Turkish-brokered deal with Iran to curtail its nuclear program after Clinton denounced the arrangement and pushed for economic sanctions and confrontation as favored by the neocons and Israel.

Just last summer, Obama – only at the last second – reversed a course charted by the State Department favoring a military intervention in Syria over disputed U.S. claims that the Syrian government had launched a chemical weapons attack on civilians. Putin helped arrange a way out for Obama by getting the Syrian government to agree to surrender its chemical weapons. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “A Showdown for War or Peace.”]

Stirring Up Trouble

Now, you have Assistant Secretary of State Nuland, the wife of prominent neocon Robert Kagan, acting as a leading instigator in the Ukrainian unrest, explicitly seeking to pry the country out of the Russian orbit. Last December, she reminded Ukrainian business leaders that, to help Ukraine achieve “its European aspirations, we have invested more than $5 billion.” She said the U.S. goal was to take “Ukraine into the future that it deserves.”

The Kagan family includes other important neocons, such as Frederick Kagan, who was a principal architect of the Iraq and Afghan “surge” strategies. In Duty, Gates writes that “an important way station in my ‘pilgrim’s progress’ from skepticism to support of more troops [in Afghanistan] was an essay by the historian Fred Kagan, who sent me a prepublication draft.

“I knew and respected Kagan. He had been a prominent proponent of the surge in Iraq, and we had talked from time to time about both wars, including one long evening conversation on the veranda of one of Saddam’s palaces in Baghdad.”

Now, another member of the Kagan family, albeit an in-law, has been orchestrating the escalation of tensions in Ukraine with an eye toward one more “regime change.”

As for Nuland’s sidekick, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Pyatt previously served as a U.S. diplomat in Vienna involved in bringing the International Atomic Energy Agency into a line with U.S. and Israeli hostility toward Iran. A July 9, 2009, cable from Pyatt, which was released by Pvt. Bradley Manning, revealed Pyatt to be the middleman who coordinated strategy with the U.S.-installed IAEA director-general Yukiya Amano.

Pyatt reported that Amano offered to cooperate with the U.S. and Israel on Iran, including having private meetings with Israeli officials, supporting U.S. sanctions, and agreeing to IAEA personnel changes favored by the United States. According to the cable, Pyatt promised strong U.S. backing for Amano and Amano asked for more U.S. money. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “America’s Debt to Bradley Manning.”]

It was Ambassador Pyatt who was on the other end of Nuland’s infamous Jan. 28 phone call in which she discussed how to manipulate Ukraine’s tensions and who to elevate into the country’s leadership. According to the conversation, which was intercepted and made public, Nuland ruled out one opposition figure, Vitali Klitschko, a popular former boxer, because he lacked experience.

Nuland also favored the UN as mediator over the European Union, at which point in the conversation she exclaimed, “Fuck the E.U.” to which Pyatt responded, “Oh, exactly …”

Ultimately, the Ukrainian unrest – over a policy debate whether Ukraine should move toward entering the European Union – led to a violent showdown in which neo-fascist storm troopers battled police, leaving scores dead. To ease the crisis, President Yanukovych agreed to a power-sharing government and to accelerated elections. But no sooner was that agreement signed then the hard-right faction threw it out and pressed for power in an apparent coup.

Again, the American neocons had performed the role of the Sorcerer’s Apprentice, unleashing forces and creating chaos that soon was spinning out of control. But this latest “regime change,” which humiliated President Putin, could also do long-term damage to U.S.-Russian cooperation vital to resolving other crises, with Iran and Syria, two more countries where the neocons are also eager for confrontation.


 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+74 # Activista 2014-02-24 20:43
"neocons are also eager for confrontation
Wars are essential for US economy .. it is dead end ... literally, but profit is essential for Money States of America.
 
 
+20 # jdd 2014-03-03 14:12
There will be no profit from thermonuclear war, just an end dead.
 
 
+7 # geraldom 2014-03-03 15:20
Activista, I'm glad you're back. You took a little vacation from the mess in Ukraine.

Amy Goodman of Democracy Now hosted a debate today between Timothy Snyder, prof of history at Yale University, and Mr. Ray McGovern. It was somewhat painful to watch and listen to.

As much as I like and respect Ray McGovern, and as much as I agree with most of what he says, Prof Timothy Snyder unfortunately won the debate even though he was completely wrong.

There were some technical problems that happened just when it was Ray McGovern's initial turn to speak up which took away from his time, and some because of Amy Goodman's moderation of the debate, and some because Prof Timothy Snyder took a lot of time to espouse his propaganda in support of the current illegitimate Ukrainian govt.

Most of what came out of Prof Snyder's mouth was pure propaganda. It was like someone following the dictates of a book entitled "Propaganda 101."

Several times, Ray McGovern came out with the key reason why Russia justifiably invaded the Ukraine, what ultimately triggered the invasion, NATO, the fact that once the U.S. obtained full control of the Ukrainian govt, it was planning on establishing NATO military bases along the border with Russia.

This is where Amy Goodman failed. When Prof Snyder was skirting around the subject of NATO, Amy Goodman failed to press him on the matter.

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/3/3/who_is_provoking_the_unrest_in?autostart=true
 
 
+5 # wrknight 2014-03-04 09:47
No American president has ever had control over his foreign policy. American foreign policy has always been dictated by American business and now multinational corporate interest groups. If they can't profit from exploitation then they will profit from war.
 
 
+63 # Activista 2014-02-24 22:22
It is very good - in depth article. Compare Robert Parry article to the coverage in the USA "liberal" mass media - how much censorship and propaganda US mass media are feeding the masses.
 
 
+14 # MidwesTom 2014-03-03 10:55
I beg to differ:

"quietly cooperating with Obama to reduce tensions over Iran and Syria, where the neocons favored military options"

Putin forced Obama's hand by placing the Russian navy between the US Navy and the Syrian coast; and then coming up with a plan to remove Assad's chemical weapons.

The American people were against doing anything in Syria. Obama and Hillary started arming the rebels in 2012, while denying an involvement. Ambassador Stephens was in charge of moving six shiploads of weapons from Libya to the rebels. He was later killed. Only Putin kept us out of Syria then, but the neocons are again pushing for us to get involved. Stay tuned.
 
 
+76 # lorenbliss 2014-02-25 00:18
Three reasons this could start World War III:

(1)-Nazism has an ugly history in the Ukraine, which welcomed Hitler's Wehrmacht, then gleefully aided the SS in rounding up, deporting and killing Jews. This history imposes huge obstacles in the present-day Ukrainian quest for national identity. (See for example http://balticworlds.com/ukraine%E2%80%99s-problematic-relationship-to-the-holocaust/)

(2)-Russia's strategic interest is threefold. Ukraine is the breadbasket of Europe – as vital to the Russian economy as the grain fields of the Middle West are to the U.S.; it is an invasion route to the Russian interior, hence vital to the defense strategies of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union and today's Russian Federation. It controls access to the Black Sea, an objective of Russian and Soviet policy since the time of the earliest Tsars.

(3)-The USian Empire's Ukranian strategy is a variant of Hitler's plans for eastward conquest. Its apparent purpose is imposition of a militarily friendly neo-Nazi state on Russia's southwestern border, for-profit seizure of Ukrainian agricultural resources and obstruction of Russian Black Sea access.

To imagine Russia will tolerate this de facto invasion is to imagine the U.S. would tolerate foreign conquest of its Middle Western states. This time the neo-cons, with their dreams of a global Fourth Reich, are making the same mistake their secret hero Hitler made: they have goaded the Bear in his own den.
 
 
+7 # Activista 2014-02-25 00:51
With both sides (NATO x Russia) feeding nationalism the worse outcome would be the forever civil war - losers are the people of Ukraine.
West (Lvov) ignores Kiev -
www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-24/lviv-takes-law-into-own-hands-as-protests-split-ukraine.html
Lviv Takes Law Into Own Hands as Protests Split Ukraine
As police fled Lviv on Ukraine's western frontier with the European Union, Marko Slyusarchuk donned a yellow vest and was deputized...
and South Ukraine's Crimeans eye alliance with Russia | World news | The ...
www.theguardian.com › News › World news › Ukraine‎
The Guardian
Speculation is rife that Crimea – with its large ethnic Russian population and fervent pro-Moscow mood – could become the target of Kremlin ...
We are paying for Yalta - when Stalin and friends divided the Europe.
 
 
+7 # RLF 2014-02-25 06:54
A WWIII is inevitable. People are well trained by todays video games to love killing and boy! have they taken to it. the whole world wants to kill their neighbors and who will stop them? The US? I don't think so...the business here sees total destruction as good for business. After WWII we bloomed and the thought is it can't happen again with out destroying everything again.
 
 
+18 # Activista 2014-02-25 11:15
"People are well trained by todays video games to love killing and boy! "
this is scary part - people under 50 are brainwashed by the war games and military technology - check other forums like yahoo.
The really believe in Star Wars Nonsense and we are spending billions to implement missile "defense" around Russia, even that the filed tests are failing. I takes only a fraction of cost to improve ballistic nuclear weapons to defeat the "defense".
The mantra keep America strong military is leading to the economic bankruptcy. And we need the war industry going - bombs are the only export we are capable of.
 
 
+13 # shraeve 2014-02-25 13:54
How much money did the USA spend on "Star Wars"?
 
 
+2 # geraldom 2014-03-03 16:51
Activista, the United States, what what I understand, has developed an effective missile defense system, but not one that uses actual missiles to knock down incoming missiles.

The United States has developed advanced very powerful radar-controlle d ship-based and aircraft-based laser weapons that can lock onto incoming missiles and destroy them rather quickly.

What I fear is that, at some point, the United States may feel that their missile-defense shield surrounding both Russia and China will become strong enough to allow the U.S. and its puppet allies in Europe, not to perhaps mount an actual military attack against both Russia and China, but to blackmail both countries into allowing the U.S. to do whatever it wished to in the world without having to worry about a counterattack coming from Russia or China.

Some good examples would include direct U.S. military action against Syria and perhaps Iran, both of whom are currently being protected by Russia.
 
 
+35 # in deo veritas 2014-02-25 07:55
Bravo! You have done your homework! Too bad the public is unaware of anything except "reality shows" and other circuses that enhance their ignorance and delusions. The neocons demented view of geopolitics as akin to that of dear old "Onkle Adolf" rather than that of Uncle Sam who made us proud to be Americans who stood for what was good and honest. I started to say "right" but that has taken on a very sinister meaning these days.
 
 
+11 # Hey There 2014-02-25 01:30
different country than Syria but the same goal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDgS_YR9Cqw

To view highlight, right click, then left click on go to link
 
 
+28 # Pancho 2014-02-25 02:31
I usually agree wholeheartedly with Parry, but I think he's wrong on some points.

While there is definitely a neo-Nazi presence in the opposition to Yanukovych, I get the impression that it is less dominant than Parry imagines.

Parry neglects to mention that the coup was against a prodigious kleptocracy that had little support amongst any of the salient factions.
 
 
+8 # jdd 2014-03-03 13:32
You are missing the point. At issue is not the Yakunovych government, that is not our concern. The neo-Nazi will be tossed aside once they've served their purpose.What is at stake is the desire of NATO to move its forward bases, especially missile bases to Russia's border. And that, my friend, is OUR concern.
 
 
-1 # curmudgeon 2014-03-03 13:58
Ya Pancho,
I guess all the 'Death to Jews'ngraffitti on synagogues and Jewish-owned stores was sprayed by the local Crips or Nortenos?.
 
 
+7 # geraldom 2014-03-03 18:43
Quoting Pancho:
.....
Parry neglects to mention that the coup was against a prodigious kleptocracy that had little support amongst any of the salient factions.


I'm sorry, but you're so wrong!! Yanukovych was seriously contemplating going with the EU on a trade deal, but rejected it and went with Russia because Angela Merkel had demanded 3 unacceptable conditions of Yanukovych that would've hurt the Ukrainian people.

o Ukraine would've had to establish an economic austerity program as severe as what existed in Greece, and you know what happened in Greece? Violent riots in the streets and a program that hurt the Greek people.

o Ukraine can only deal only with the EU and can't have anything to do with Russia.

o Last, and the worst of the three, Ukraine would've had to join NATO, allow NATO to build permanent NATO/U.S. military bases along the Russian border and allow who knows how many U.S./western troops on their (sovereign) soil. But, to add true insult to injury, Ukraine would've had to supply its most precious resource to the U.S./NATO cause, their young men and women to die for the United States, to die in illegal U.S. wars of aggression throughout the world for U.S. world domination.

If I were Yahukovych, I would've also told the EU to go screw itself. Russia was willing to loan Ukraine the money it needed to get out of trouble with very few conditions and still allow Ukraine to trade with the EU if the EU was willing to do so.
 
 
+7 # geraldom 2014-03-03 19:35
By the way, Pancho, for a so-called prodigious kleptocracy that had little support amongst any of the salient factions, and I'm assuming that you are referring to the fmr Yanukovych admin, he was a democratically- elected leader in an election that even the United States at the time said was a completely fair and honest election, not stolen like a lot of elections have been in the United States.

I don't know where you get all of this propaganda bunk from, but that's all it is. Just because Yanukovych was rich doesn't mean that he didn't have the Ukrainian people at heart in deciding what trade deal was best for them, and the so-called EU trade deal turned out to be a lot more than just a simple trade deal. It required the Ukrainians to shed their blood for illegal U.S. wars of aggression and to give up their sovereignty as a nation to the EU and the U.S. by allowing foreign forces permanent status on their soil, NATO, a puppet army of the United States, and, in the bargain, forcing Russia to target Ukraine with their offensive nuclear-tipped missiles just in case the U.S. actually starts a war with Russia. How stupid does that sound to you?

The so-called pro-western Ukrainian people have no idea what they're getting if Ukraine joins the EU.

As far as being rich, most of the U.S. politicians in Washington have become multi-millionai res only after they took public office. Bill Clinton amassed a fortune of $100 million since he became president in 1992.
 
 
+42 # antineocon 2014-02-25 02:52
How to get rid of the neocons in the USA?
 
 
+26 # MidwestTom 2014-02-25 08:11
The easiest way to eliminate the influence of neocons would be to require that only people holding US and US only citizenship may serve in high government positions.
 
 
+3 # nice2bgreat 2014-03-05 02:15
I do not understand what you mean that would have 23 progressives agreeing with you.
 
 
+39 # soularddave 2014-02-25 09:39
Let them volunteer to go fight the wars they wish for.
 
 
-3 # jdd 2014-03-03 13:34
The way to get rid of the neocons is to impeach the one in the White House, and open the way for a real Democrat before its too late. And it's getting there.
 
 
-7 # draypoker 2014-02-25 04:13
I don't like the the author's apparent praise of Yanukovich. His government is not to be admired and could not be described as democratic. It is very difficult to see what will happen to Ukraine but there are alternatives to Yanukovich who might help steer the country in a democratic direction, perhaps with the assistance of the EU. Getting the country away from the alliance with Putin's Russia may be good for both countries.
 
 
+40 # Anonymot 2014-02-25 06:22
So you suggest we overturn every corrupt, , undemocratic government in the world? What about ours?

Where I disagree with Parry is his attempt to soften Obama's responsibility for appointing almost exclusively neocons to major positions everywhere in the administration. Obviously he listened a lot to Hillary. She put a lot of her girl friends in place and he put real hard liner men in everything concerning defense and security.

Cheney built the coffin. Obama nailed on the lid. Inside lays Democracy.
 
 
-17 # draypoker 2014-02-27 08:50
I think it would be good to encourage democratic government in the Slavic east. Putin wants to keep Ukraine in its traditional role of being a Russian satellite. I suspect he knows that if Ukraine succeeds in getting rid of their dictatorship the Russian people might get rid of him. I hope so.

(It has very little to do with America).
 
 
+10 # jdd 2014-03-03 14:04
Satellite? Their histories are woven together.
 
 
+5 # curmudgeon 2014-03-03 14:10
What did you expect?.....on the day he won the 2008 nomination, he tossed the 'Yes we Can' advisers and hired Hilary's advisers as well as several of Bush White House 'advisers' (minders?)
 
 
+13 # RLF 2014-02-25 06:58
Long ago US foreign policy decided that it is better to have enemies than independent states because at least we can make plans.
 
 
+21 # tgemberl 2014-02-25 12:25
Draypoker didn't suggest "we" overturn any government. He or she is only raising a question about whether Yanukovich's government is the best for the Ukraine. It's up to the Ukrainian people to decide that, not us or Russia.
 
 
+10 # jdd 2014-03-03 14:06
They didn't decide. The elected government was overthrown by a foreign directed coup d'Etat.
 
 
+6 # cordleycoit 2014-02-25 06:10
Again the center right did not hold. At the end the people took charge self policing etc. Then out of nowhere comes the EU money into the hands of the soft right. Putin may not have the tanks to betray the Ukraine as Trotsky did in the twenties he could run with what he has like George Bush did as he went crazy in Iraq. And create the same failure.
 
 
+22 # karenvista 2014-02-27 20:49
There is no EU money. They are offering more IMF loans along with the usual austerity demands and privatizations. This will be the second set of IMF loans, remember the first loans mostly went into the pockets of the leaders like Yanukovich, Tymoshenko and various cronies. Ukraine is left to pay it back.

Tymoshenko, of the braided hair, whom we support, was investigated for 10 crimes including a murder and just released because of the coup from her 7 year prison sentence over abuse of power relating to a gas contract she negotiated with Gazprom. She is a billionaire from gas interests.

There doesn't seem to be anybody clean here and the country is known for vast corruption.

Only neo-cons would want to open this basket of snakes. It will make them money and impoverish this nation while not helping the situation in Ukraine.
 
 
+41 # walt 2014-02-25 07:03
Yes, the neocons....as in AIPAC and the Israel Lobby as detailed by authors Mearsheimer and Walt in the book of the same name. They own and operate the Congress, White House and most of the government as has been evidenced in calls for sanctions against Iran from a large portion of Congress, to include many Democrats.

Robert Parry nails it here and he is right saying that Obama has failed to stand up to them. That was most noticeable when he increased troops to Afghanistan in 2009 and even now as he continues to launch drone killings around the world.

Until Americans see who is controlling our foreign policy, we will remain on a path to permanent war with the neocons cheering our troops all the way. We pay and die for their goals. Enough!
 
 
+34 # fredboy 2014-02-25 07:39
Whatever happened to the nutcase neocons who championed the Iraq invasion? I always pictured them standing around in full-length leather trench coats, licking their combs and combing their hair, and carefully selecting human targets. Amazed that the entire nation bowed silently before them and let them have their way. Pussies all. Pussies all.
 
 
+44 # intheEPZ 2014-02-25 10:57
[quote name="fredboy"] Whatever happened to the nutcase neocons who championed the Iraq invasion?" They are now well-paid Fox News talking heads and/or neocon think tankers with grubby paws still in the Diplomatic corps: eg John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle are fellows at American Enterprise Institute, Douglas Feith (Hudson Institute), Robert Kagan (head PNACster) is at Brookings Institute, his wife Victoria "F*ck the EU" Nuland, ambassador to Ukraine, helped foment the recent violent coup. John Negroponte is at Yale Univ's Jackson Institute. Still trying to drum up wars and bloody conflict, all. They should be in an insane asylum with Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Obama.
 
 
+13 # Anonymot 2014-03-03 11:33
And those who have been kept in government employ as cabinet-level, members of the Obama administration -FBI/CIA/DOD/NS A/TSA/HS/etc. ad nauseum put their advice into working order and have Obama sign the papers and make the speeches.

They cannot, however, be put into an insane asylum, they already own it, operate it, and siphon off its profits. The only one who has escaped is Hillary, because she's rich now and wants to become tha asylum's CEO i 2016.
 
 
+32 # in deo veritas 2014-02-25 07:44
The EU should hold no attraction for the Ukraine. Run by the Bank of England (the whore of Babylon)the track record of the EU has been to devastate the economies of a number of its members-that is a matter of public record but played down or ignored by the propaganda machines posing as "the media". Indeed a neo-Nazi operation using its minions to instigate the riots and bloodshed in Kiev. The neocons in this country are accomplices to this violence as they have been for decades. Their legacy can be seen everywhere: the shattered bodies and lives of their victims here and abroad as the result of their lies and machinations. Until those responsible for this- Bush, Cheney, and their henchmen and women, as well as all the deluded fools who believed their lies and supported them in their intrigues -and still do- are brought to justice there will be no closure. The same applies to allowing nearly thirteen years to pass without exposing the Saudis and their minions in Washington to be held accountable for their part in 9/11. Obama's promise to open the FULL report on it has NOT been kept (as in many other cases) under the guise of "national security". We the Sheeple are willing accomplices until we show the world that we are different from the neocons. The big question as-are we as a people different? Or is it as the old phrase says "we have met the enemy and he is US"?
 
 
+5 # draypoker 2014-02-27 08:58
This really is nonsense. The Bank of England does not run the EU. In any case it is nationalised and has to follow British government policy.

Eastern Ukraine citizens tend to support Russia; western ones speak Ukrainian and tend to be Catholic. A break up of the state is quite possible. The western part might join the EU.
 
 
0 # nice2bgreat 2014-03-05 04:53
in deo veritas made quite a few distinctions for "This", as you say, to be understood as nonsense. Are we supposed to blanket dismiss in deo veritas' comment over your one objection?

Would you be willing to bet anything near your nut-sack as to whether "the western part [of Ukraine] [will] join the EU? Any time soon, that is.

Are you advocating breaking up Ukraine?

Talk about nonsense.
 
 
+31 # Even 2014-02-25 09:03
"...Dick wanted to see the dismantlement not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never again be a threat to the rest of the world."

Or maybe just a threat to American hegemony;
the greatest threat to the rest of the world is none other than the USA.
 
 
+26 # Helen Marshall 2014-02-25 10:36
Please note that the little adventure in Afghanistan, "when the Reagan administration supported Islamic militants, including Osama bin Laden, in a war against Soviet troops," actually began when Jimmy Carter was persuaded by Zbigniew Brzezinski to support the mujahideen, to give the USSR a black eye. Obama is not the first Democratic President who allowed himself to be used for other people's "regime change" goals!
 
 
+29 # geraldom 2014-02-25 13:02
Helen, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you that Obama has been a pawn in all of this, that he's being used by other people's regime change goals.

First of all, I condemn Obama and his SOS at the time, Hillary Clinton, for instigating and supporting the coup d'etat against the democratically- elected govt of Pres Manuel Zelaya in Honduras in 2009, and I also condemn them for the coup d'etat that took place in Paraguay as well as the current coup d'etat that's happening in Venezuela against the democratically- elected president, Nicolás Maduro.

I suggest that you watch the following video:

http://dncdn.dvlabs.com/ipod/dn2014-0220.mp4

It's last Friday's airing of DemocracyNow with Amy Goodman. Once the video starts, I'd suggest you move the scrollbar pointer to the 13 min 30 sec mark and begin listening to the interviews Amy Goodman has with Professor Stephen Cohen, an expert on Russia and the Ukraine. The interview lasts about 22 mins and it's not at all boring.

A particularly interesting segment to watch and listen to is the leaked discussion between Victoria Nuland, a very high level official in the U.S. state dept and the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, discussing as to who the U.S. should place in the Ukrainian govt to run it once it falls. It last for about one and a half mins and starts at the 25 min 20 sec mark.

I ask you not to give Obama the benefit of the doubt here. He's guilty as charged for the coup d'etat in the Ukraine.
 
 
+21 # Agricanto 2014-02-25 14:56
Indeed, the conflict in Venezuela is grafted from the Ukraine by US interests. The media narratives on the protestors and the government are interchangeable . And Hillary's removal of Mel Zelaya in Honduras was definitively the salvo that showed where the US is willing to go in Latin America to undo the success of a more independent political posture in the world. When it comes to foreign policy, this country has never steered away from its imperial designs regardless of who is in power.
 
 
+8 # tgemberl 2014-02-25 19:54
Harold,
I watched the Democracy Now interview. Cohen is certainly a russophile. He's right to point out that Nuland and Pyatt are very familiar with the opposition figures. Nuland refers to them with nicknames. But can you really be sure that this constitutes any more than encouragement of the opposition? Tell me if I'm missing something. I realize I could be missing the forest for the trees.

At one point Cohen says that Americans called the Arab Spring a breakout of democracy, and Putin suggested it was instead an outbreak of disorder and Islamic extremism. Cohen asks, "who turned out right?" I feel like saying we don't know yet. The story isn't over yet.
 
 
+15 # geraldom 2014-02-25 21:05
tgemberl, you forgot to mention that after Amy Goodman played the leaked discussion between Victoria Nuland and the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, that Stephen Cohen stated that it appears that they are plotting a coup d'etat against the democratically- elected leader of the Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych.

As far as your point concerning Professor Cohen's remark about Putin's statement concerning the Arab Spring. Putin does have a point. As a rule, if a government gets overthrown via a violent or even peaceful revolution, generally the new leader will end up not being the nice guy you hope he will be.

Professor Cohen used Egypt as an example. As it may turn out in the end, the Egyptian people might have been better off under Muhammad Hosni Mubarak than what faces them in the future.

The people who ran the peaceful demonstrations in Egypt did have democracy in mind, but they may end up with a worse dictatorship in the Egyptian government than they started out with.
 
 
-2 # tgemberl 2014-02-26 12:44
Harold, the tape does quote Nuland and Pyatt as speaking of "helping glue" and "midwife this thing." That most likely does mean they wanted to promote regime change, but I still don't know if you can infer from it that they were IN CONTROL of the movement. If any of us witness something we feel sympathetic to, we might speak in those same terms and only mean we want to help. I don't know if it has to mean "plotting a coup." I think plotting a coup implies you actually have control, to some extent at least.

Now, Cohen does say later that the American citizen should have a say in what our ambassadors in the Ukraine are doing. Maybe that's true, but given the shear size of our country and the complexity of our government, it may not be possible on a day to day basis. We citizens may only be able to exercise oversight over our government's policy in general.
 
 
+17 # geraldom 2014-02-26 13:34
tgemberl, I mean no disrespect here, but if you wish to keep your head stuck in the sand like an ostrich and if you refuse to see the forest for the trees, there's nothing that I can do to persuade you. I just can't keep on responding to your doubts and your wish that things are brighter than they look.

If I were you, and I don't know how old you are, how long you've been around, if you're serious about learning the truth, I'd strongly suggest that you watch a documentary entitled "American Coup" which deals with the overthrow of Iranian PM Mohammad Mosaddegh of Iran in 1953, who, like Victor Yanukovych, was a democratically- elected leader who the U.S. didn't like because he helped nationalize Iranian oil in 1951 which took away control of the oil from the U.S. and the UK and gave it back to the Iranian people.

The Modus Operendi (MO) used by the CIA at the time to carry out this coup was virtually identically to how the CIA had carried this coup against Victor Yanukovych. They hired a mob of paid protesters and rioters to take over the streets and used this core of protesters to draw in even more protesters and rioters who were totally unaware of what was really going on until they succeeded in overthrowing Mosaddegh and the U.S. simply inserted the Shah into the vacuum that had been created.

Google "American Coup," and look at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

I can't do anything more for you.
 
 
-12 # tgemberl 2014-02-27 18:21
Harold,
I think you're right about Mossadegh, but you can't assume that the same is true in this case. Actually, in the interview of Cohen by Goodman, he says that Yanukovych (while democratically elected) is no good, and that good, peaceful people started the demonstrations against him. So the position you are taking is not the position of Cohen. Be careful.
 
 
0 # maryf 2014-03-06 23:21
Quoting Harold R. Mencher:
The people who ran the peaceful demonstrations in Egypt did have democracy in mind, but they may end up with a worse dictatorship in the Egyptian government than they started out with.

But through no fault of their own. As soon as Morsi was elected it was a foregone conclusion that the US/Israel/neoco ns (pick your Satan) would engineer his removal and ensure that the military - bought and paid for by the US - would wind up back in charge.
 
 
+14 # karenvista 2014-02-27 21:18
Was the fact that Nuland said last fall at the National Press Club that we had already spent $5 Billion supporting opposition forces in Ukraine not mentioned?
 
 
0 # tgemberl 2014-03-05 15:12
Karen,
Put this in context. In the speech, she said they'd spent that much "since 1991." That's a lot of money, but over 23 years it's not quite so outrageous.
 
 
+23 # Helen Marshall 2014-02-25 10:44
PS. It was in fact under Bill Clinton that the US reneged on its commitment not to expand NATO eastward, at the NATO summit in Madrid in 1997 which invited Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic to join. Hillary is not the only neo-con leaner in that family.
 
 
+13 # geraldom 2014-02-25 12:17
Helen, I agree with you on this matter. When Gorbachev negotiated a deal with G.H.W. Bush in the early 1990s to allow the breakup of the fmr Soviet Union (SU) into its individual nation-states, giving them their freedom and their sovereignty to rule themselves, the agreement required that the U.S. and its proxy (puppet) military in Europe, NATO, not encroach one inch into these newly created sovereign countries, either politically or militarily.

Why Gorbachev, the president of the fmr Soviet Union, allowed the breakup of the U.S.S.R. in the first place and signing an agreement with a country, the U.S. of A., that rarely ever honors any agreement it signs once it gets what it wants, is so beyond me.

Gorbachev had a good heart at the time, but was too trusting of the U.S. and the western powers and he got screwed. If what just happened in the Ukraine, another coup d'etat by the U.S., is allowed to continue, then Gorbachev's actions in the 1990s, giving away the farm so-to-speak, may well have been the poison pill that ultimately will be the end of Russia as we know it.

The Germans got slaughtered in WWII by Russia because they attempted a direct attack on Russia, but the U.S. is doing it a whole lot smarter like a cancer slowly eating up what used to be the former SU.

I mostly blame Russia and its leaders, and I include Gorbachev and Putin in that statement, for not standing their ground militarily against the U.S. for massive violations of this agreement.
 
 
-7 # tgemberl 2014-02-25 12:39
What if the citizens of those countries want to be members of NATO? I'll admit that expanding NATO may be less wise than expanding the EU, since it is an inherently military alliance. But it is up to the countries involved to decide what they want to do.

I hope that Ukraine independence will be a good thing for Russians, too. I hope it will provide a good example of a freer society. Russians have been stuck in despotic government for centuries.
 
 
+20 # geraldom 2014-02-25 13:52
Quoting tgemberl:
What if the citizens of those countries want to be members of NATO? .......... But it is up to the countries involved to decide what they want to do. .........


First of all, tgemberl, the people of these nations were not given a choice in the matter of joining NATO. It was the leaders of these countries, whoever led them, who decided to join NATO. He (or she) never bothered asking their people if it was okay.

And, if I am correct on this matter, and the agreement signed between Gorbachev and G.H.W. Bush included some clause prohibiting NATO from expanding into these new nations in exchange for allowing the breakup of the fmr Soviet Union by Gorbachev, then it really doesn't matter that a particular leader or leaders of these new nations may want to join NATO.

This is an agreement, a treaty, honorably agreed to and signed by both sides that the new nations created out of the breakup of the SU wouldn't become militarized. Placing permanent U.S. military bases in these country was an outright violation of this treaty.

And if the U.S. does take control of the Ukraine as I know it will, and if the U.S. builds permanent U.S. bases near or along the Russian border as I know it plans on doing, then Russia will have the very same right that JFK had back in the Cuban Missile Crisis to take whatever appropriate action that would be necessary to remedy this action which could very well lead to a nuclear conflict. The U.S. is playing fire.
 
 
0 # tgemberl 2014-02-25 14:26
Harold,
I don't want the Ukrainians to belong to either the US or Russian sphere of influence. Just as I believe the Venezuelan people had the right to elect Hugo Chavez president. Any attempt we made to remove him was totally out of line. But remember, the Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire for centuries. Would it be at all surprising if they felt more threatened by Russia than by us?

With all its problems, the European Union is a lot better place to live than Russia. Freer and more law-governed. I hope the Ukraine will influence the people of Russia in positive ways.
 
 
+11 # geraldom 2014-02-25 16:17
tgemberl, I agree with you that life is better and more freer in many of the nations that make up the EU, but it's not necessarily that simple or that black and white.

This is true in many or most of the countries that make up western Europe prior to the breakup of the SU with some minor exceptions since the financial crisis of 2007 or 2008. Countries like Greece, for example, where people rose up violently in the streets protesting against the austerity program dictated to their government by the EU.

Unfortunately, in terms of the eastern European countries who joined the EU and NATO after the breakup of the SU, I cannot say the same thing. Very recently, there have been violent riots and protests in the streets George against the fmr president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili. The Georgian people are not as happy as you might think.

Many of the nations that used to be part of the old SU and who've joined the EU are outright dictatorships, but that's alright with the U.S. because they give us whatever we want. They jump through our hoops.
 
 
+10 # geraldom 2014-02-25 16:19
Continued

And, as far as Russia and Putin are concerned, tgemberl, it appears that you're not aware of the facts. Before this mess started in the Ukraine last year, when Yanukovych was talking with Angela Merkel about joining the EU, Yanukovych told Merkel that he wanted to work with both the EU and Russia. Merkel coldly told him that that was totally unacceptable to the EU, that one of the requirements demanded by the EU was that the Ukraine deal with the EU and only the EU, not at all with Russia.

In addition, Merkel told Yanukovych that there were other caveats to joining the EU by Ukraine, that Ukraine had to do what Greece had done, set up an extreme austerity program that needed to be approved by the EU that would've severely hurt the Ukrainian people and that (and this to me was the straw that broke the camel's back) Ukraine had to satisfy certain requirements and loyalties to NATO.

When Putin heard the demand by the EU that Ukraine must only deal with the EU, he responded by asking "Why?" Putin asked why can't Ukraine maintain its sovereignty and its independence by working with both the EU and Russia? I ask you, tgemberl, who sounded more fair and reasonable?

Please wake up, tgemberl. The EU and the U.S. are no angels by any means, and Russia is not as bad as the country it once was before Gorbachev came to power.
 
 
+6 # tgemberl 2014-02-25 20:03
Harold,
Thanks. What you say here follows what Cohen said. Could you provide some independent source that shows that Merkel demanded the Ukraine not deal with Russia? And if Merkel did make that demand, did she give some reason?
 
 
+12 # geraldom 2014-02-25 21:34
I know that I heard it from several sources, including from Professor Cohen on Democracy Now. You see, tgemberl, I watch and I listen and I read from many different sources. Look, tgemberl, Professor Cohen is an honorable man and he has no axe to grind when it comes to Russia, the Ukraine, and the United States. He wouldn't make such a statement if it wasn't true. If I can remember where else I heard this or read it, I will notify you, but I did hear it or read it elsewhere.

As far as why Merkel would have made such a demand, I don't know the answer to that. I can guess, and I do believe that it has a lot to do with NATO, that the U.S. wishes to establish a military footprint in Ukraine as it has done in other eastern European countries, and it would be a direct conflict with Russia's interests since I strongly believe that virtually all of the permanent U.S. military bases physically established in all of the eastern European countries that used to be part of the old Soviet Union are not there at all because of Iran as the U.S. claims, but to establish a surrounding ring of anti-missile bases against Russia.

Both Russia and China are the only impediments prohibiting the U.S. from dominating the rest of the world, most especially Iran.

What I fear the most is that if the U.S. feels that it has established a strong enough and impenetrable anti-missile shield surrounding Russia and China, that it would be free to do whatever it wants in the world with impunity.
 
 
+13 # geraldom 2014-02-26 09:11
tgemberl, I found the 2nd source where I heard the story about the discussion between the EU and Victor Yanukovych. It was once again aired on Democracy Now on Jan 30th, 2014 where Amy Goodman held a debate. Let me 1st give you the following URL:

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/1/30/debate_is_ukraines_opposition_a_democratic

When the page opens, scroll down a bit until you see the following hyperlink, "Show Full Transcript ›" Click on it to fully open the transcript of that debate.

Then do a word search by pressing and holding down the "Ctrl" key and momentarily pressing the "F" key. A word search box will open.

Type in the word "NATO" into the word search box and you'll be taken to that part of the script describing what Ukraine would've had to abide by when it comes to NATO requirements. It's not in very much detail, but it does sound extremely ominous.

I also believe that somewhere in that debate, it also mentioned that the Ukraine's loyalties would have to be strictly with the EU.

On the same URL, at the very top of the page, you can run the video of the debate that took place that day, but I do have to express my feelings here. I don't like the gentleman who advocates for the opposition protesters. He comes across in a very strong manner and to me he's just speaking propaganda, not necessary facts. His opponent seems to have the opposite personality and has a difficult time expressing himself.

I found this debate somewhat stressful to watch.
 
 
0 # tgemberl 2014-02-27 18:15
Harold,
I read that transcript. Here's the basic question I would ask: Cohen's emphasis is on how the moderates have "lost control" of the movement so that extremist elements have taken over. As I said in another comment, can any movement control who gets involved, except for maybe an authoritarian movement? Even the Occupy Wall Street movement was somewhat ruined by extremist, violent people getting involved. So the impurity of a movement can't invalidate it completely.

As I said in quoting the interview of Cohen before, he admits that Yanukovych isn't good and that good people started the demonstrations against him. So he doesn't agree with a view like yours, that the demonstrations were fake and orchestrated by the US, like the anti-Mossadegh demostrations in Iran.

He may be right that the Ukraine is two countries. But I'm more sympathetic to Anton Shekhovtsov, the man he debates with.
 
 
+1 # jdd 2014-03-03 14:10
You are so right, but remember the bigger picture that Ukraine is to be used to bring NATO to Russia's doorstep. When there was the Cuban Missile Crisis we had a statesman, now we have this (dangerous)fool .
 
 
+6 # draypoker 2014-02-27 11:08
Many of the nations that used to be part of the old SU and who've joined the EU are outright dictatorships, ...

I am not aware of any state for which this is true. It is a requirement of membership of the EU that a member state must have free elections. Georgia is not a member of the EU though its presidents have wished for it.
 
 
+1 # jdd 2014-03-03 13:41
You are ignorant of Russian history. Ukraine is the birthplace of Slavic culture, including Russian culture. It's like saying Windsor, Ontario shouldn't be in our sphere. Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine?
 
 
+1 # jdd 2014-03-03 13:46
Ukraine was never offered EU membership, but rather some second status if it accepted EU and IMF conditionalitie s ala Greece, including removal of all subsidies. Russia offered $15 and below market gas costs. Right now, which sector is prospering: the trans-Atlantic or the Eurasian?
 
 
+3 # karenvista 2014-02-27 22:10
Unfortunately Gorbachev had a verbal agreement with George H.W. Bush, who, for some reason he trusted.

He has continually stated that they had an agreement and reproached Bush and the U.S. for not honoring it.

No one should ever trust the U.S. we will break any agreement or treaty whether in writing or not.
 
 
+1 # jdd 2014-03-03 13:36
You are stuck in the cold-war.
 
 
0 # Caliban 2014-03-04 12:04
So, are you saying that you want war between Russia and the West, Harold? And if so, why?
 
 
0 # jdd 2014-03-03 13:36
But she is, by far, the worst.
 
 
-1 # firestick 2014-02-25 11:35
This article is so off-base ignoring that the majority of Ukrainians want to secure a fruitful future independent of Russian domination. To propose that the leaders at the fore-front of the heroic stand in Kiev are neo Nazis reveals how absurdly darkly contrived the writer is regarding the Ukraine. We should never forget the Russian imposed holocaust starving to death 6 million Ukrainians deeply burned on the souls and memories of the Ukraine. Further reading implies there are Russian interests subverting the perspective and RSN, kind of obvious that the battle for our opinion is highly manipulated buy these interests. Please respect the citizens of Kiev who were shot dead by the force of these interests. Let the Ukrainians shed the Russians as they will.
 
 
+7 # Activista 2014-02-25 12:24
"Let the Ukrainians shed the Russians as they will..."
Problem is that the Eastern/South Ukraine the majority are Russians.
"Please respect the citizens of Kiev who were shot dead .." many shot were NOT from Kiev - but from Lviv (west from Kiev). Would guess that the police shot there were mostly from Kiev.
The militants, are not the majority of the Ukrainian people.
 
 
-1 # firestick 2014-02-25 12:34
Russia has been a blight on all its neighbours. Ask Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians what they think of Russian domination. Can you imagine the holocaust imposed by the Russians killing 6 million Ukrainians! Do you think they want Russians dictating to them!
 
 
+7 # tgemberl 2014-02-25 12:35
I'm receptive to the possibility that the Ukraine may need to be split, as horrific as that might be. But most Ukrainians are not Russian and do not want to be under Russian domination.
 
 
+1 # firestick 2014-02-25 12:48
The Ukrainian population demographics are as follows:

Ukrainian 77.5, Russian 17.2

I don't think that 17.3% of the population should dictate to the vast majority of Ukrainians. There is nothing more that Russia wants than to divide the Ukraine now that the majority of Ukrainians are asserting their will. It is the plan B.

Census data from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine
 
 
+3 # tgemberl 2014-02-25 14:30
firestick,
I hope the Ukraine won't be broken up. I'm just not 100% sure something like that wouldn't have to happen eventually. I hope that like Hungarians in Slovakia and other ethnic minorities around the world, they will learn to live in a truly independent Ukraine. I think it will be a good influence on Russia, too.
 
 
+4 # Activista 2014-02-25 21:31
"On the contrary, the revolution has given the ethnic Russian majority in Crimea their best chance ever to break away from Kiev’s rule and come back under the control of Russia. “An opportunity like this has never come along,” says Tatyana Yermakova, the head of the Russian Community of Sevastopol, a civil-society group in Crimea.
Read more: Crimea, Russian Stronghold in Ukraine, Is Ready to Fight Revolution | TIME.com http://world.time.com/2014/02/23/the-russian-stronghold-in-ukraine-preparing-to-fight-the-revolution/#ixzz2uOYo81R4
According to 2001 Ukrainian Census, the population of Crimea was 2,033,700. The ethnic makeup was comprised the following self-reported groups: Russians: 58.32%; Ukrainians: 24.32%; Crimean Tatars: 12.1%; Belarusians: 1.44%; Tatars: 0.54%; Armenians: 0.43%; Jews: 0.22%, Greeks: 0.15% and others.
Crimea will go to Russia ...
 
 
0 # jdd 2014-03-03 16:57
You are so wrong. The last thing Russia wants is a NATO puppet government bringing missiles to its borders. "Plan B" also contains the potential for nuclear war. Get it?

When an adventerous Kruschev put missiles 90 miles from Florida, we nearly had WW III. Now the situation is reversed, but instead of cool-headed JFK we have the reckless Obama.

Hope Putin stops this insane game it before we get there.
 
 
-2 # perkinsej 2014-02-25 11:35
You guys just don't get it. Isn't it time for the Roman Empire to start pulling in its global borders. Here at home, let's just get back to good-ole Monroe Doctrine days.
 
 
0 # tgemberl 2014-02-25 12:31
Let me lay out a crazy scenario. Let's say that the people of a country decided they wanted regime change, and it just happened that some Americans agreed with them. Of course it would be impossible for those Americans to not control what happened. Because the president didn't disagree strongly with what they said, the Obama administration must have been behind the whole thing.
 
 
+4 # intheEPZ 2014-02-25 12:58
Nice thought, but let's not be naive.
 
 
-3 # firestick 2014-02-25 16:58
The person who started the demonstrations in November was a Muslim. The first people who came were university students from Kiev. The next people who came were Red Army veterans. When the regime started to kill people, the first person who was killed was an Armenian. The second person who was killed was a Bielorussian. In the sniper massacre of last week, which is what led to the change of power, which is what directly led to the change of power, one of the people who was killed was a left-wing ecologist Russian speaker from Kharkiv, Yevhen Kotlyar. Another was a Pole. The people who took part in this protest represent the variety of the country. The people who oppose these protests also come from various parts of the country.
 
 
+15 # geraldom 2014-02-25 18:14
firestick, I find it extremely amazing the detail you describe as if you were everywhere all at the same time. With all that has been going on, the rioting, the violence by the protesters, the total disarray in the streets, you seem to know every detail of the chronological events.

I'm sorry, but I find that too hard to digest. How these demonstrations began and who started them, I have my own ideas based on the leaked conversation between Victoria Nuland and the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt.

What I believe is that the U.S. instigated these protests against Yanukovych in the same way it instigated the protests against Prime Minister Mosaddegh of Iran in 1953 by using paid mobs to riot in the streets, a core of paid protesters in an attempt to overthrow the democratically- elected leader of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych. This core of paid protesters would then draw in even more protesters completely unaware of what really taking place until things got so way out of control, the so-called opposition succeeded in overthrowing a legal govt.

If you think that the Yanukovych govt was too harsh on the protesters who were burning and destroying govt buildings and killing police, be thankful that these protesters weren't protesting and destroying govt buildings and killing police here in the United States.

I can guarantee you that the U.S. govt would have crushed the protests in a heartbeat with many more dead and injured.

Continued
 
 
+14 # geraldom 2014-02-25 18:29
Continued

By the way, firestick, by the time things settle down in Ukraine and the smoke clears, the U.S. will be in control of the Ukrainian govt via the EU and the Ukraine will be made a member of NATO, and Ukraine's most precious commodity, their young people, will be dying and losing their lives in illegal U.S. wars of aggression for world domination.

In other words, firestick, young Ukrainians will be dying for the United States and not for Ukraine as was the case for so many other western and eastern European countries who sent their own precious young people to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq and in many other places that the U.S. instigated illegal wars of aggression for world domination.

And, I would warn the Ukrainian people who protested against Victor Yanukovych not to even try to protest against a Ukrainian government controlled and backed by the U.S. The violence and the deaths that took place under protests against Yanukovych will look like a walk in the park when compared to what will happen to protesters protesting against a U.S. backed Ukrainian govt.
 
 
-1 # tgemberl 2014-02-25 20:10
Harold,
How would the US control the Ukraine via the EU? Do we control the EU? Cohen himself admitted in the interview that the US isn't very happy with Angela Merkel.

At another point in the interview, Cohen said, when laying out a hypothetical situation, that Yanukovich "is a rat" or something similar. I got the impression he really meant that. He also said there were initially hundreds of thousands of good people protesting Yanukovich, before more extremist elements took over. So he seems to think protest was at least somewhat justified.

As for extremist elements, no one can control them completely, except a tyrant. Even the Occupy Wall Street movement was ruined by extremist, violent elements getting involved. Only an authoritarian government can stamp out extremism completely. That's not what we want.
 
 
+12 # Activista 2014-02-25 23:30
How would the US control the Ukraine via the EU? Do we control the EU? ...
yes - we do - look up NATO!
 
 
+7 # geraldom 2014-02-26 18:29
Quoting Activista:
How would the US control the Ukraine via the EU? Do we control the EU? ...
yes - we do - look up NATO!


Thank you, Activista, for chiming in on this thread. I kind of gave up on trying to convince tgemberl of the truth. I started responding to this last inquiry, but the response started to get too long and I just gave up.

Besides NATO, I wanted to add stuff like the U.S seems to be the orchestra leader who determine what nations in the world today will have sanction pressed against them, like Iran for example, that the U.S. just recently threatened France with sanctions (imagine that) when France had trade talks with Iran.

And then you need to ask yourself why every member of NATO (which is every member of the EU) has to send a contingent of their soldiers to die in illegal wars of aggression instigated by the U.S. for U.S. world domination. In other words, why should the French or the Germans or the Danes have to send in their most precious national resource to die for the United States, their young people?

I watched an episode of that new program from Denmark on Link TV entitled "Borgen" and Denmark actually sent their young people to fight and die in Afghanistan for the United States, and to murder innocent people there along with the United States.

It pissed me off. Doesn't any member of NATO have the huevos to tell the U.S. where to stick it when the U.S. expects them to fight its illegal wars of aggression?
 
 
+5 # draypoker 2014-02-27 11:00
And then you need to ask yourself why every member of NATO (which is every member of the EU) ...

Sweden and Ireland are not members of NATO. Also some of the Baltic States
 
 
0 # tgemberl 2014-02-27 18:30
Harold,
As I said, take a close look at what Cohen says. Your position is not the same as Cohen's. He does not equate the Yanukovych situation with Mossadegh.
 
 
0 # jdd 2014-03-03 17:03
You are so correct.
 
 
0 # jdd 2014-03-03 17:02
You are quite misinformed. The leaders of this coup were neo-Nazis, Svoboda and Right Sector. Yanukovych restrained the police, even denying arms to the Berkut. Many policemen were killed, beaten up or taken prisoner. Buildings were burned and looted. Armories were raided. Finally, the police gave up in disgust when Right Sector broke the agreement for elections and invaded the Rada.
 
 
+4 # sethwilpan 2014-02-25 13:41
This phrase undercuts your credibility:
"... provide a base for al-Qaeda to plot the 9/11 attacks against the United States." Do you really believe that fairy tale?
 
 
+14 # BKnowswhitt 2014-02-25 19:49
They'll blame Obama for it all. Whether he was good or not won't matter. I personally don't give a shit. The Cold War began when Truman et al created 'The Bretton Woods agreements' where the USA would run the world. It started the cold war as they decided to not pay Russia it's due reparations as they suffered the greatest losses in WWII. And then the Military Industrial Complex and politics cooked it up through JFK to Ronny Reagan. Oh what a great history. Now it's fucking Obama's fault because these pricks like Dick Cheney et al want to continue it .. ?? i throw up my hands to it all as it all makes me want to Throw UP!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!
 
 
+4 # Activista 2014-02-25 21:49
Words are cheap ... where is a money for Ukraine?
Facing collapse, Ukraine a costly prize for West
Associated Press via Yahoo! News 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Ukraine may well be the geopolitical prize nobody can afford to win.... needs $35 billions to avoid crash ..
"Ukraine, a country of 46 million, is torn between its pro-European western regions and its Russian-speakin g east and south. The tensions date back to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Ukraine's unexpected independence in 1991. In the Crimean Peninsula, protesters rallied this week against the new authorities in Kiev and pleaded for protection from Moscow"
2001 Ukrainian Census, the population of Crimea was 2,033,700. The ethnic makeup was comprised the following self-reported groups: Russians: 58.32%; Ukrainians: 24.32%; Crimean Tatars: 12.1%; Belarusians: 1.44%; Tatars: 0.54%; Armenians: 0.43%; Jews: 0.22%, Greeks: 0.15% Paradox is that the EU could end with bankrupted Ukraine, and Russia will end with strategically important Crimean peninsula.
 
 
+1 # Anonymot 2014-03-03 17:20
"EU could end with bankrupted Ukraine, and Russia will end with strategically important Crimean peninsula."

That is Exactly what our Deep State foreign policy makers deserve for starting this stupid regime change policy. What we need is an American regime change - but for something new, not the Republicans who are 1/2 shade worse than the democrats. What else is out there?
 
 
-2 # Buddha 2014-02-28 12:47
Ug. Look, I'm as Progressive and against US foreign intervention as they come, but this article simply poorly researched tripe. Yanukovych was surely elected democratically, but that isn't the issue here. It isn't even that some in the country wanted closer ties to the West while he pushed closer ties to Putin's Russia. And portraying everyone who was fighting against Yanukovych's regime as "neo-Nazi's" is intellectual laziness in the extreme. Sure, the protests initially started from those who wanted closer ties to the West, but what blew up the entire country was when Yanukovych and his backers in the Ukraine legislature responded to those initially small and peaceful protests with autocratic legislation designed to squash peaceful protest and dissent and lock in power for Yanukovych and his ilk, and when he responded violently to peaceful protesters. In the last month, protesters included those who still wanted closer ties with Russia, but who weren't open to doing it with an autocratic boot on their neck. And were "neo-nazi" groups part of that protest? Sure. Were they even close to a majority? No way. Ukranians as a whole stepped up and said that their choice of direction wasn't going to be an "either/or" choice between East and West, wasn't going to be determined by the US/EU OR Putin, and certainly wasn't going to be with an autocratic boot on their neck.
 
 
+5 # pgolay 2014-03-01 13:30
Timothy Snyder's article "Ukraine: The Haze of Propaganda" in the latest New York Review of Books is worth a look.
 
 
+15 # sharsand 2014-03-03 11:46
As as Jew by birth, though non-practicing, I sit in amazement at the neo-con Jews who are willing to go to endless war, but not with their children's lives at stake. This flare-up in the Ukraine particularly interests me because the neo-cons are so adamantly anti-Obama they'll do anything to humiliate him. In the Ukraines, the neo-con Jews are willing to help real, honest-to-goodn ess NAZIs who have admitted their hatred for Jews. So if Putin is out and the Nazis are in, then what. One extreme is as bad as the other. We initiate these flare-ups globally and then have no idea whom to support. We prop-up right-wing leaders who are no better than the left-wing leaders we kick out. One of the reasons I turned against religion years ago is because it made no sense to me that 6,000,000 Jews plus several millions Poles, gypsies, disabled, etc. were also slaughtered, mostly in ovens. And here we are as a Jewish people, protecting our money and Israel, instead of taking care of this country, America, the country to which we should owe owe loyalty in terms of building a real democracy, not a corporatocracy. In my humble opinion, considering what was done to the Jewish people, all Jews should want to work here at home for social and economic justice, a progressive Democratic party, rather than lust for never-ending wars, wars in which neither they nor their children will ever serve. Jews particularly should read the Southern Poverly Law Center newsletters.
 
 
-11 # tahoevalleylines 2014-03-03 12:12
North Korea will attack South Korea

China will take Taiwan

Japan will EASILY acquire nuclear weapons capability

(fill in the blank)

----------

Russia continues attempting pre-emption of growing German financial & industrial dominance in the EU.

Germany EASILY acquires nuclear weapons capability

Nazi influence -in place- rekindles sentiment for Fourth Reich

(fill in the blank)


-----------

Our dear young President focuses his energies on a more fertile field: Israel...

Israel passively acquiesces to meddling by peacemakers like Chomsky, Cohn, etc. and Kerry

Concurrent shuffling by Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Brotherhood et al brings alignment of countries round about Israel into solidarity of intention to remove Israel (and perceived ability to do so)

(fill in the blank)

----------

USA Emergency Executive Orders for motor fuel allocation

US Emergency Orders on food distribution

US uses NAFTA mutual defense agreement language for call on Canadian MacKenzie River & Columbia River watershed to recharge primary aquifers and assure food security going forward

(fill in the blank)

-----------

Do you-all have several months food & water for your household & neighbors on board prepping?

Hunker down; see Old & New Testament prophetic chapters for more info when EMP knocks out communication.. .
 
 
+7 # harleysch 2014-03-03 14:15
Good article by Parry, but for one notable omission: the role of Tony Blairite "Responsibility to Protect" war mongers who are very close to Obama, i.e., Susan Rice and Samantha Power. They are part of Obama's inner circle, and are instrumental in the continuation of Cheney-neo-con policy in the Obama administration.

Blair himself continues to play a leading role, on behalf of the real Empire, in leading U.S. Presidents Bush Jr., and Obama, into support of conflicts under the Imperial Doctrine of Responsibility to Protect. That whole coven around Obama, including Valeria Jarrett, must go, along with Obama, who is not a mere spectator in the drive to war.
 
 
+7 # curmudgeon 2014-03-03 14:46
Several thoughts from a feeble mind.

1. How is Obama going to explain to Bibi that the U.S. just installed neoNazi control (a puscht) in the Ukraine therby endangering thousands of Jews. Much 'Death to Jews' graffitti on synagogues and Jewish businesses does not bode well. Possibility of pograms is very high.

2. The 3rd Reich did NOT lose WWII....Germany did.
Remember the powerful and influential German-American Bund almost brought the US into WWII aligned with the Axis...the influence of Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh notwithstanding.

Remember that the Walker branch of Bush family acted as reps for Thyssien and other 3rd Reich companis until threatened by US governement with treason in 1942 or1943.

Rove's famiy ties to SS is well known.

Remember all the German SS, and scientists we welcomed and hid on our shores in the immediate aftermath of the war.

Parry and others have documented the history of US welcoming Ukrainian neoNazi exiles onto our shores and into the government beginning with Reagan.

Are we seeing the rising ofthe 4th Reich on the western shore of the Atlantic?
 
 
+2 # David Starr 2014-03-03 14:50
There was the "Orange Revolution." Could this be called the Orange coup?
 
 
0 # curmudgeon 2014-03-03 15:04
Maybe we can set up a business supplying 'brown shirts' for the storm troopers?
 
 
+5 # jdd 2014-03-03 15:28
Kerry talks of huge spending to support the putschists in Kiev, while Obama cuts food stamps to 50 million Americans. Unreal.
 
 
+2 # jdd 2014-03-03 15:31
Obama needs to shut up. Without Russian logistical support our forces are sitting ducks in Afghanistan.
 
 
+6 # madams12 2014-03-03 16:12
Thanks to various media sources i've checked in the past few days...starting with the obvious, Times of Israel and Haaretz news.....it should come as no surprise then that according to them, there are thousands of ex IDF mercenary/soldi ers present in Ukraine already to "help"...much as US billions sent to 'aid' rebels in Syria have helped in that situation. Every time another 'situation' evolves I cannot help but think about this SCRIPT carefully written and published in 1982 in the key journal of the World Zionist Organization, called"Kivunim" by a guy named Oded Yinon who then worked in one of the Israeli ministries. It plainly discussed their plan to TAKE DOWN 7 countries decimating them to their smallest sectarian /confessional component...tra nslated by Prof Israel Shahak that year to get widest distribution..u nfortunately few pay attention to that plan which the Neocons/Pnac types put in play in the Pentagon under George W. If you google Gen Wes Clark 2007 campaign speech /book he addresses that cabal who were behind it...the names we know from the IRAQI take down...to be followed by Libya, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Iran and a couple more. No fiction there. Yinon Plan.
 
 
-5 # mjc 2014-03-03 18:34
No truer words were ever written than Parry's in his opening paragraph. Although think that many of us kind of knew that foreign policy would not be Obama's strength except on the issues of bringing our troops home from the wars of choice, we did not anticipate Putin's apparently deep-seated desire to return the Soviet Union of past glories. And Russia is not in great shape now due to previous excesses, the Chechen "uprising", and the billions spent on the Olympics. The Ukraine protestor have already proved that are willing to die for an independence that the Putin is not willing to allow. But even so there is no military option for American troops or drones or ???
 
 
-2 # fdawei 2014-03-04 03:20
From The Yalta Conference, sometimes called the Crimea Conference and codenamed the Argonaut Conference, held February 4–11, 1945 to end Word War II and bring order and reconstruction to a destroyed to continent attended by Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, a despicable tyrant whose equally despicable disciple Putin also a tyrant, 69 years later in 2014, has undone the hope these three war-time leaders had for a new world order, by seizing "annexing" the Crimea.
 
 
0 # Activista 2014-03-04 22:21
Yalta Conference divided Europe among the "winners" ask people in Eastern Europe, East German "Democratic" Republic.
People of Crimea will have referendum -
 
 
+2 # Allanfearn 2014-03-04 03:52
I like the article, but it shares all the faults of the last 100 years of US involvement with Europe - and not just Europe -superficial expertise pasted on to profound and dangerous ignorance. The issue is whether or not Ukraine is a viable political unit. It was designed by Kruschev as part of the internal government of the USSR. It happens more or less to coincide with the limits of the victorious German advance into Russia ended by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1917. Most of its Russian speakers aren't there by any kind of democratic choice. As for Putin, no Russian ruler since Peter the Great could possibly be reconciled to even a friendly alien state controlling the Black Sea coast west of the Sea of Azov. This is kid's stuff, but neither your neocons nor your liberals have a clue about it. Putin has been given the chance of a lifetime, and he is taking it with restraint. But he is not going to back down, nor, in my view, should he. Fpr goodenss sake, try doing your homework and don't just talk to folk who say what you want to hear.
 
 
0 # Activista 2014-03-04 22:29
I agree with you Allan - would guess that your expertise and age differs from the author of the article. And you conclusion is playing out right now:
" Putin has been given the chance of a lifetime, and he is taking it with restraint."
 
 
-2 # Sangze 2014-03-04 17:59
It's all about gas.
 
 
+3 # ganymede 2014-03-04 22:18
Mr. Parry has a wonderful way of cutting through the bs of world events. Our great imperialist country, in its long-running, misguided attempts to rule the world has become the biggest warmonger and danger to world peace since Hitler and Stalin. It also seems that with the fascist neocons, who still control much of our government, we have become the biggest terrorists and threat to peace. It also seems that Obama is not totally plugged into the neo-con agenda. I have sufficient respect for Obama, and strangely enough, for Putin, that they will work something out to avert a tragedy. Obama has learned a lot over the past 6 years, and he knows he can still go down as a great President and reformer, but he's going to have to kick a lot of stupid asses.
 
 
0 # Rafe Pilgrim 2014-07-20 16:48
Could it be that Obama and his Saudi and British petrol meisters are endeavoring to cut off the Russian oil supply to Germany and other Western nations?
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN